However, it was the people with decades of business experience that got us where we are today. So, exactly what good is this experience that everyone needs it.
Mr. Deese was not the only one favoring the Fiat deal, but his lengthy memorandum on how liquidation would increase Medicaid costs, unemployment insurance and municipal bankruptcies ended the debate.
Every time Mr. Deese ran the numbers on G.M. and Chrysler, he came back with the now-obvious conclusion that neither was a viable business, and that their plans to revive themselves did not address the erosion of their revenues.
How is he drawing his conclusions? Does he really have a deep enough understanding of the underlying model when he 'runs the numbers'?
From there, he can make it quickly to the press office to help devise explanations for why taxpayers are spending more than $50 billion on what polls show is a very unpopular bailout of the auto industry.
I'm sure the NYT is not giving us the whole story, but there's a piece of me that worries that what makes this guy successful is not intelligence (though he certainly may be smart) but charisma. Just because you can sling a good presentation / memorandum and speak eloquently about it does not mean you should be setting critical government policy about tremendously complex problems.
And expecting experience in the face of unprecedented events that require restructuring the old order is somewhat counterproductive. You do not want someone who is determined to save certain features of the old order merely because that is what they understand; what is needed is someone who is comfortable mediating the different forces at work and discovering workable approximations of the new order that minimise the damage overall.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6451802.html
Overall, it is only the 4th largest bankruptcy in the US.
That being said, adaptable and intelligent people should be able to pick up on business decisions relatively quickly if they are given adequate support staff.
Experience didn't save them. Hell on the other side, experience didn't make Toyota the company it is now (although they did recently post a loss, they are hardly in GM's position). Willingness to disregard that experience and try something that made sense did.
Years of experience is a poor indicator of success.
That's a bold claim that defies common sense. Do you have anything to back it up?
The present shape of the auto industry is complex, and not simply attributable to the hubris of its leaders. The outsourcing of parts manufacturing, a labour union that is too strong, a lack of funding for attractive design, a government that offered too many protections, and last but not least, the entitlement culture of the american auto industry.
The American auto industry was not competitive. I am not suggesting it was easy to make money, I am suggesting that we simply did not keep up the hunger for "new & better". To say that is merely the product of age and experience is foolhardy at best.